Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

branford

(4,462 posts)
29. No, you're not right.
Tue Nov 3, 2015, 03:32 AM
Nov 2015

You're changing the actual situation to conform to your own feelings and biases, and have not actually read or digested all of what I explained or what was detailed in the OP. According to the story, the man didn't "run after the thieves and shoot them down" rather he lawfully chased criminals, they threatened him, and only then did he use his firearm in legal self-defense. Your objection is that the man possessed the means to properly defend himself and not fear the pursuit of criminals. Not fearing criminals does not make one an "aggressor" under the law.

If you are robbed, you have a right to chase the thieves. In fact, absent unusual circumstances, you can follow anyone for any reason on public property. Your possession of a gun (or knife, bat, etc.) is immaterial, and the basic laws of self-defense do not change. Generally, you may only employ lethal self-defense, firearm or otherwise, if you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. You may not just shoot a fleeing thief in the back. However, if while pursuing the thieves, they turn and seriously threaten you, as happened in the OP, self-defense is indeed justified. Notable, thieves generally may not claim they were acting in self-defense if they are escaping from their crime and attempting to avoid capture. The more permissive self-defense laws in Texas which permit lethal force to defend property were not really pertinent in this incident, as usual self-defense laws as exit elsewhere would cover these circumstances. Robbery is also usually considered a violent crime, not just a property crime, justify more lethal self-defense measures.

The man did not simply kill two men over a purse, as you suggest. He was willing to give chase to actual thieves, and then use a firearm only when they threatened him because they wanted to ensure their escape. The thieves should have kept on running, but I most certainly do not sympathize with the results of their mistake to threaten violence in order to get away with their crime. They are lucky to be alive, and have only themselves to blame for their misfortune. Hopefully, they will reflect on their poor choices while incarcerated.

The only "madness" and belief that "life is cheap" was displayed by the thieves for engaging in a dangerous (and repeated) criminal enterprise, and you, because you want to effectively deny victims the right to defend themselves, and worse, defend and sympathize with criminals while blaming the victims.

Again, the use of a gun was ancillary to this incident as it pertains to right to lethal self-defense, and you truly do not understand the right of victims (or the public) or the rules of self-defense, regardless if the locale is Texas, San Francisco or most anywhere else.

As to whether I would kill another human being over a slice of pizza, a bicycle or Ipad, my response would be that if I possessed a means to adequately protect myself without endangering others, I likely would not voluntarily turn over my hard-earned property to criminals, and if they threatened violence, I would sadly feel the necessity of lawfully responding in kind to protect myself. The death or injury of the violent criminals would be regrettable, as any loss of life is tragic, but the fault would be the criminal's, not mine.

Are you actually suggesting that people should have a legal obligation to peacefully turn over their property to thieves in order to protect criminals from injury?








Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Try to be helpful these days. yeoman6987 Nov 2015 #1
"he grabbed a handgun and ran after the suspects." SecularMotion Nov 2015 #2
LOL - Looks like we reached the same conclusion. nt procon Nov 2015 #5
It has been established sarisataka Nov 2015 #7
Looks like Texas is a bad place to be a criminal. FLson Nov 2015 #9
Actually, that is legal in California gejohnston Nov 2015 #11
It is perfectly legal to pursue escaping robbers, with or without possession of a firearm, branford Nov 2015 #12
He "ran after the suspects" in order shoot them. procon Nov 2015 #3
Oh, so you were there? GGJohn Nov 2015 #10
I'm sure your own fictionalized speculation is absolutely correct. procon Nov 2015 #13
He only shot AFTER the POS turned to confront him. GGJohn Nov 2015 #15
Why, that sounds like the same excuse George Zimmerman used, so it must be OK. nt procon Nov 2015 #16
LOL. GGJohn Nov 2015 #17
Odd, but when I think about gun violence, humor is not the first thing that comes to mind. procon Nov 2015 #18
Odd, I don't remember laughing about firearm violence, which, BTW, GGJohn Nov 2015 #19
so, not only are you saying that gejohnston Nov 2015 #20
Running down the robbers after they left and no longer posed a threat, procon Nov 2015 #21
If the robbers drove away, it would still be perfectly legal to pursue them branford Nov 2015 #23
Are you actually trying to argue it was self defense to run after them and shoot them down? procon Nov 2015 #26
No, you're not right. branford Nov 2015 #29
You are laboring under illusions... Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #34
No the excuse Zimmerman used.. virginia mountainman Nov 2015 #22
That happened after Zimmerman tracked him and accosted him. procon Nov 2015 #24
According to the evidenced adduced at trial, branford Nov 2015 #25
The sad truth is, that virginia mountainman Nov 2015 #27
not self defense, he pursued them just so he could shoot them mwrguy Nov 2015 #4
He didn't shoot sarisataka Nov 2015 #8
It's perfectly legal to pursue escaping thieves. branford Nov 2015 #14
Prove he did it virginia mountainman Nov 2015 #28
What?! And stop a newly-concocted Narrative™ in its tracks? I won't hear of this. Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #36
So much for the myth of the law abiding gun controller. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2015 #43
Correction: The violent Thugs are in jail. Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #35
One life possibly saved, and millions dead over the last hundred years. FLson Nov 2015 #6
Two men TeddyR Nov 2015 #30
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #31
I have no idea what you are talking about TeddyR Nov 2015 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #33
So, directly calling someone "racist" is now a package deal with NRA Talking point? Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #38
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #40
But, they take it so seriously. Followed by "no one wants to take your guns©." Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #41
So, any rebuttal to your "reasoning" isssss an NRA "talk point?" Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #37
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #39
I now bowel down. Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #42
bad, bad man with a gun... ileus Nov 2015 #44
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»SAPD: Man defends girlfri...»Reply #29